Netflix Documentary (s)

I am an avid Netflix Documentary watcher, and I saw one lastnight called Religulious by Bill Maher. I know religion is a touchy subject, but hoyl smokes, does this ever bring some light to a very taboo topic. I recommend watching it.

Has anyone seen any other good ones? Street Thief is another really good one!

Chargers's picture
Chargers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/7/09

tough to argue with what you said. i am sure someone will find a peer reviewed article on LOVE for you, just to prove that it is true. cause all peer reviewed articles make it true, just like all the bad drugs out there.

guywhofishes Said:
I consider faith to be a lot like love. You know it, you feel it, you can observe its effect on people and your life  -  But you can't measure them or scientifically prove either exists. Yet some argue that one is just a silly fantasy people choose to believe in, while the other is "real", valid, and most certainly exists.

Now I'm sure that the "real" scientists here will argue that love is simply the "warm and fuzzy" chemicals our body makes that cause what we know as love to register in the brain and that they  ARE measurable - therefore love is easily explained and is "real".

But for some reason, some of us normally cool/calculating scientists have another love in our hearts for the spiritual part of our being and our maker. We truly do feel it  in our hearts/brains.

But we're branded as coo coos and unwashed ignorant neanderthals by a few elites.

Seems a bit subjective to me. Believe in YOUR kind of love, but ridicule another's.

bobkat's picture
bobkat
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

Of course modern medicine has changed a whole lot over the past century, even the past couple of years.   That's an excellent point!  Modern medicine and all science continues to evolve and change as new stuff is discovered and developed.  Dunno about you but  I for one am glad!  What Science consider "state of the Art right now, might be totally outdated in 5 years.  Nothing wrong with that, IMO. 

My only beef with religion? -  Even now, though, like in the middle ages where the Church held back all progress for about 500 years (The Dark Ages)  Religion still tries its best to twist scientific findings to fit their own agenda, even to the point of fabricating so called medical "facts' to decieve people into doing it their way!
This is my primary beef with religion  -   continually trying to cram their own self centered values and rules down everyone else's throat!  In any other thread on FBO  they would be called "LIBERALS!"   or "CONSERVATIVES USING 'LIBERAL'  METHODS TO FORCE EVERYONE TO SEE AND DO THINGS THEIR WAY! " Objectively think about it in that way - you'd have to agree..... The religious establishment hardly has the "agree to disagree" attitude! 

Believe or not believe - I could care less, as long as you don't try to force your own beliefs down my throat!   A personal choice for everyone to make for themselves, not for me! 

Once again, there should be an absolute wall between Religion and Government.  IMO we do NOT need some Dictatorial guy in a far off country or a group of people in the "Bible Belt" telling the rest of us what to do!  Not trying to offend anyone, just saying  it the way I see it.  

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10
Plainsman Said:

I think someone said I have theory and law mixed up.  I don't think so.  I think first you have theory, then you use some type of proof.  If you have proof to back up theory then you have a scientific law.  I have a theory about gravity (and biology) that if I jump my old fragile carcass off the roof of my house I will move rapidly towards the earth and bust my dumb behind.

Yikes. I guess I'm seeing more and more why you say "Often those of the scientific persuasion get angry when you drop that on them" . I think it's because you don't seem to quite understand the difference between scientific theory and the more common misunderstood everyday use of 'theory'. Again, scientific theory never becomes a law. Theory is bigger than law, and more complicated. In science, theory is the uppermost  form of factual scientific achievement. An no, 'fact' doesn't mean absolute certainty. Science isn't arrogant or ignorant enough to claim that, unlike Christianity where the word of God is said to be absolute truth.

here is a  video of an 8th grade teacher giving a quick explanation of scientific theory vs law.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:

Plainsman Said:  ...So the fact is if you choose to believe evolution that requires as much or more faith than for me to believe in Jesus...  

its statements like this that are getting the nonbelievers so frustrated.  i am not so sure they are trying to "push their beliefs" or non beliefs on anyone in this debate anymore than the believers are trying to do the same.  but, plainsman... you have continued to mention your scientific background in biology throughout this debate... and then you follow it up w/ statements like the one above.  there is nothing you can say that will make most of us believe that believing in evolution "requires as much or more faith than for me (or you) to believe in Jesus".  that is patently absurd.  as a biologist, you should know that.  try saying that in a room of your biologist friends and see what the response is.  i know what the response would be if i was in a room w/ my geologist counterparts... regardless of their faith. 

maybe you can argue that the fact that Jesus did walk this earth is on the same level as evolution when it comes to provability.  but, even that is a stretch.  but, u lose credibility, in my eyes anyway, when you say that believing in evolution takes more "faith" than believing in Jesus... especially if you mean believing in the fact that Jesus was/is God. 

we have the bible... which, at best, is first hand accounts from eye witnesses who walked the earth the same time as him.  that is a book that is 2K years old.  if a person tried to enter it into evidence in a court of law to prove wbread, cured the sick, was born of a virgin, etc... you would have a tough row to hoe and would likely be laughed out of the courtroom. on the other hand, the evidence for evolution is all around us. we have entire museums and libraries on the subject all which can point us to actual physical evidence that we can look at and touch w/ our own eyes and hands. hat is in the book... ie... Jesus walked on water, rose from the dead, turned water into wine, fed 5000 w/ a few fish and a loaf of

the two are on completely different playing fields.  your faith in Jesus Christ is grounded in just that... Faith!... its basis in "fact" is no more sound than the faith that moslems, mormans, jews, islamists, budhists, and even those wacky scientologists etc... have.  to say that evolution's basis in fact is less than any of the above is simply wrong.  have your faith please.  but, as a scientists... try not to equate your faith w/ science when it comes to which is more provable or requires more "faith".

I found this analogy to be kind of appropriate for this discussion. Not making any claimsor suggestions here merely pointing out something of fact. It seems to impress some folks here.

In the court of law that has been mentioned above where proof and fact and evidence are the most critical, and argueably the only standard allowed, what book is one asked to place his hand upon in swearing" to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God."
 
I don;t think it is Darwins Theory of Evolution!!!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Lol. Actually... I don't know of any courts that still use a bible or the phrase..."so help me god."

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

And u butchered my quote ;)

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Kind of confusing.  Tells how it happens vs describes how it happens.  Hmmmm
I always looked at a scientific law as a scientific fact while theory was more like hypothesis.

Looking at the below definitions I was looking at law is indisputable while I looked at theory as having a possibility of finding it false.  I still think that is correct.  Perhaps I inappropriately looked at law and fact as much the same.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations.

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

   Why does everybody think the bible is a fiction book. I dont get it. anybody ever read the  I believe it is the 11 or 12 chapter in the book of Daniel. It describes the exact events after alexander the great died and his kingdom was torn by a civil war of his generals. Now the book of daniel was written in 585 B.C the events happened sometime at the end of 300B.C. , forgive me if I get the dates a little off. Or how about the destruction of Jerusalem, written in old testament happened in 70 A.D. My favorite is, which was written many times, about when Israel would become a nation again. 1948 . How can a book written 2000 years ago, by some 2nd hand people prophecy about a certain group of people having their own nation again. Thats like us saying the Souix people will have their own country in 4002 A.D. 
   It says there will be a falling away first, where evil will be called good and good evil.
Sound familiar, its okay to be queer, have adultrey, kids out of wedlock is no big deal. 14 year olds getting pregnant. My pastor preaches queer marriage is wrong, there will be a time when he will go to jail for hate speech (canada).

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
Lol. Actually... I don't know of any courts that still use a bible or the phrase..."so help me god."

Luckily I haven't had to be in court for quite a while so I admit I am not up on current practices!!

But I do beleive it was a standard for quite some time.  But maybe things do "evolve"!!!

I suppose before too long our money will not say "in God we trust" either.

espringers Said:
And u butchered my quote ;)

My apologies, somethimes when I use the little deals on the top of the text box (embolden ect... ) stuff happens.

Capt Ahab's picture
Capt Ahab
Offline
Joined: 6/14/11

I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't say Israel becomes a nation again in 1948. I would have to look it up, but it is probably written pretty vague and is open to several different interpretations. The same thing can be said for Nostradamus' predictions. Many people think he has been right, but he was also vague in his predictions and his stories can be fit to many different historical events.

I could very well be wrong, but I would love to check out the actual bible verses that you referenced.
 

Meatball Said:
   Why does everybody think the bible is a fiction book. I dont get it. anybody ever read the  I believe it is the 11 or 12 chapter in the book of Daniel. It describes the exact events after alexander the great died and his kingdom was torn by a civil war of his generals. Now the book of daniel was written in 585 B.C the events happened sometime at the end of 300B.C. , forgive me if I get the dates a little off. Or how about the destruction of Jerusalem, written in old testament happened in 70 A.D. My favorite is, which was written many times, about when Israel would become a nation again. 1948 . How can a book written 2000 years ago, by some 2nd hand people prophecy about a certain group of people having their own nation again. Thats like us saying the Souix people will have their own country in 4002 A.D. 
   It says there will be a falling away first, where evil will be called good and good evil.
Sound familiar, its okay to be queer, have adultrey, kids out of wedlock is no big deal. 14 year olds getting pregnant. My pastor preaches queer marriage is wrong, there will be a time when he will go to jail for hate speech (canada).

I have a bad feeling that whenever a lesbian looks at me they think “That’s why I’m not a heterosexual”. -George Costanza

I was in the pool! I was in the pool! You don’t understand! There was shrinkage!   -George Costanza

You know if you take everything I’ve ever done in my entire life and condense it down into one day, it looks decent. -George Costanza

Don’t insult me, my friend. Remember who you’re talking to. No one’s a bigger idiot than me. -George Costanza

crfisherman's picture
crfisherman
Offline
Joined: 3/31/03
Once again, there should be an absolute wall between Religion and Government.  IMO we do NOT need some Dictatorial guy in a far off country or a group of people in the "Bible Belt" telling the rest of us what to do!  Not trying to offend anyone, just saying  it the way I see it.  
 

Just wondering when we started using PRIVATE letters to set public policy? 

The statement “separation of church and state” comes from a private letter to a private organization.  It was never sent thru congress, voted on by the senate, yet now everyone wants to quote it. 

Have you read the Declaration of independence? 

Here is how it starts.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

 Note, the founders thought it was God who created us, not that all men evolved equally, understanding they never even heard of evolution. 

Note also all our rights are given to us from an outside force, not by the government but “endowed by their Creator”. 

Every state constitution makes mention of God and/or His Son.  No, the founding fathers had no problem with the Jewdeo-Christian values being involved in public policy.   

 

 Live like you'll die tomorrow,
Die knowing you'll live forever.

gonefshn's picture
gonefshn
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

It's not in the Declaration of Independence. 

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment to each state. This was done through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has also recognized a series of exceptions to provisions protecting the freedom of speech.

crfisherman's picture
crfisherman
Offline
Joined: 3/31/03

I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't say Israel becomes a nation again in 1948. I would have to look it up, but it is probably written pretty vague and is open to several different interpretations. 

 "The sticks on which you write will be in your hand before their eyes. Say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms.

Ezekiel 37:20-22

70 ~ 120 AD the Romans destroyed everything in Jerusalem, and the Jews were scattered all over.  Then under some horrible persecutions by Hitler and Stolen, they went back to “their” land as one nation.  Previously, before 70 AD, they were two separate nations, one in the north and one in the south, but now they are one nation.

One would think a people group scattered for nearly 2,000 years would lose their identity, but not the Jews.

"Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things?

       Shall the Earth be made to give birth in one day?

       Or shall a nation be born at once?

       For as soon as Zion was in labor, she gave birth to her children."

       (Note: This prophecy was fulfilled in one day - on May 14, 1948)

(Isaiah 66:8)

   "He will set up a banner for the nations,

       and will assemble the outcasts of Israel,

       and gather together the dispersed of Judah

       from the four corners of the Earth."   (Not just Babylon ...)

       (Isaiah 11:12)

 

“Behold, I (God) am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling (anger, fear) to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. 3 It will come about in that day (known as “the day of the Lord”… the coming Apocalypse) that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.”   Zechariah 12:2-3

This last part, “all nations gathered against it” we know has not yet happened, but it is coming, watch the news.

     "Behold, the Day of the LORD is coming,   (the coming "Apocalypse")

And your spoil will be divided in your midst.   For I (God) will gather ALL the nations to battle against Jerusalem"

       (Zechariah 14:1-2)

 

Recognize for this to happen the people must be in their land.  This is not referring to when the Romans came against Israel, it says “all nations”. 

 

Okay that is just a few I got quickly.  There are more.  oh, and yeah, I know, the bible doesn't give the date.

 

 

 Live like you'll die tomorrow,
Die knowing you'll live forever.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

The separation of church and state in the fourteenth amendment takes a lot of imagination.  Read it over and over and see if you can find it.  That supreme court decision is a good example of why conservatives are upset with what they call legislation from the bench.  The supreme court in that decision went beyond their powers and in all reality did legislate from the bench.  Those who's job it is to protect our constitution abused it.

gonefshn's picture
gonefshn
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

The only difference between "upholding the constitution" and "legislating from the bench" is which side you're on regarding their decision.

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

I am sorry for the messup, I should of said the prophecy came true in 1948. Me bad.

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

Jerusalem will be a burdensome stone in that day, Ezekial. forgot the chapter, going off memory isnt the best. But does that sound familiar. our own state dept. wont recongize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel, All the muslim nations say it is theirs so called holy city, recall the crusades. No matter what you think, that Book speaks truth.

gonefshn's picture
gonefshn
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

Meatball Said:
Jerusalem will be a burdensome stone in that day, Ezekial. forgot the chapter, going off memory isnt the best. But does that sound familiar. our own state dept. wont recongize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel, All the muslim nations say it is theirs so called holy city, recall the crusades. No matter what you think, that Book speaks truth.

It should be allowed to be the home of all the religions that have their roots there and they should all live in PEACE and honor it's glory and historical significance as God would truly want it to be.  They all believe in the same God.  It's just different interpretations by man that have caused one to believe their better or more right than the other.  Do you really think he'd want just one religion to think it was "theirs" at the exclusion of all the others?

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

I am sorry but Israel is for the Jews, given to by God. Its pretty cut and dry.

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

And they dont believe in the same God, there is the God of the bible, and there are madeup gods by man.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

gonefshn Said:
The only difference between "upholding the constitution" and "legislating from the bench" is which side you're on regarding their decision.

Not really.  I don't think I would like it if the legislated conservative values from the bench either.  I'm not sure though, because they have never done that, so I can't make my decision from experience.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Meatball Said:
And they dont believe in the same God, there is the God of the bible, and there are madeup gods by man.

I've heard folks like huckabee say the same thing.  And people wonder why I'm atheist.

crfisherman's picture
crfisherman
Offline
Joined: 3/31/03

A good documentary, Expelled: no intelligence allowed.  Shows how even the evolutionist have their radical.  Yeah, Hitler was an evolutionist saying the Jews didn’t “evolve” right and wanted them out of the gene pool. 

 Live like you'll die tomorrow,
Die knowing you'll live forever.

crfisherman's picture
crfisherman
Offline
Joined: 3/31/03

and has anyone seen the 180 movie?  I can't get it to load right from youtube.

 

 Live like you'll die tomorrow,
Die knowing you'll live forever.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Plainsman Said:

gonefshn Said:
The only difference between "upholding the constitution" and "legislating from the bench" is which side you're on regarding their decision.

Not really.  I don't think I would like it if the legislated conservative values from the bench either.  I'm not sure though, because they have never done that, so I can't make my decision from experience.

Neat

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

I don't understand why so many people get  judgemental over believing or not believing in  a supreme existence.
There is really no iron clad  scientific scheme to fully complement either belief.  Atheists are as much at fault as the other end of the spectrum when they become critical.
 But on a  less pensive note,  one can only believe there are more atheists on this site then Multi but they  aren't being as honest as he  . Or perhaps their supreme being is someone other then Jesus.  Remember,  Jesus was probably the first socialist,  a term that seems to ignite many here.  One can only arrive at one conclusion.  Perhaps those that rant the loudest, wrapped in the flag and crucifix, are really in drag.  Whatever the case, the radical, religious right's thinking is a bit convoluted to say the least.  If you talk the talk, walk the walk .  But many seem to seek a duplicity that involves manufacturing BS to further self interests and their own inner conscience.

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

fishmahn Said:
I don't understand why so many people get  judgemental over believing or not believing in  a supreme existence.
There is really no iron clad  scientific scheme to fully complement either belief.  Atheists are as much at fault as the other end of the spectrum when they become critical.
 But on a  less pensive note,  one can only believe there are more atheists on this site then Multi but they  aren't being as honest as he  . Or perhaps their supreme being is someone other then Jesus.  Remember,  Jesus was probably the first socialist,  a term that seems to ignite many here.  One can only arrive at one conclusion.  Perhaps those that rant the loudest, wrapped in the flag and crucifix, are really in drag.  Whatever the case, the radical, religious right's thinking is a bit convoluted to say the least.  If you talk the talk, walk the walk .  But many seem to seek a duplicity that involves manufacturing BS to further self interests and their own inner conscience.

  Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill

Definition of SOCIALISM

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

 

Neat

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

JOhnr-So what are you saying Churchill  was an  atheist?
The ownership of production and distribution by the community as a whole.
Kind of what Jesus said wasn't it? 

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Ever think about it like this?????

Here is what is peculiar. Many conservative Christians, mostly Protestant but also a number of Catholics, have come to believe and proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated, union busting, minimal taxes especially for wealthy investors, plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations. And many of these Christian capitalists are ardent followers of Ayn Rand, who was one of - and many of whose followers are -- the most hard-line anti-Christian atheist/s you can get. Meanwhile many Christians who support the capitalist policies associated with social Darwinistic strenuously denounce Darwin’s evolutionary science because it supposedly leads to, well, social Darwinism!

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

fishmahn Said:
I don't understand why so many people get  judgemental over believing or not believing in  a supreme existence.
There is really no iron clad  scientific scheme to fully complement either belief.  Atheists are as much at fault as the other end of the spectrum when they become critical.
 But on a  less pensive note,  one can only believe there are more atheists on this site then Multi but they  aren't being as honest as he  . Or perhaps their supreme being is someone other then Jesus.  Remember,  Jesus was probably the first socialist,  a term that seems to ignite many here.  One can only arrive at one conclusion.  Perhaps those that rant the loudest, wrapped in the flag and crucifix, are really in drag.  Whatever the case, the radical, religious right's thinking is a bit convoluted to say the least.  If you talk the talk, walk the walk .  But many seem to seek a duplicity that involves manufacturing BS to further self interests and their own inner conscience.

hallelujah!  especially the part about people wanting to mix & match, trying to live the best of both worlds, denying the bad fundamentals of their religion while preaching the good.  Being labeled or calling myself an atheist kinda sux though.  Atheist is such a strong word, but so far its the best one that describes where I stand.  I don't like "free thinker" because to me that means I can decide 1+1 might =3, and agnostic just doesn't care, but agnostics aren't viewed as devil worshipping hate mongers like atheists.  so maybe oneday a better word than atheist will come to be to describe where I stand on religion, but until then...

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

Jesus never once preached that a political body should take from one group and redistribute amongst another. He preached that those with the ability should help the less fortunate by their own free will. Big difference.

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

Candiru's picture
Candiru
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/2/06

 

buckmaster81 Said:
Jesus never once preached that a political body should take from one group and redistribute amongst another. He preached that those with the ability should help the less fortunate by their own free will. Big difference.

Where did jesus say anything about imposing christianity and its morals on people through gov't?  

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fishmahn Said:
Ever think about it like this?????

Here is what is peculiar. Many conservative Christians, mostly Protestant but also a number of Catholics, have come to believe and proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated, union busting, minimal taxes especially for wealthy investors, plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations. And many of these Christian capitalists are ardent followers of Ayn Rand, who was one of - and many of whose followers are -- the most hard-line anti-Christian atheist/s you can get. Meanwhile many Christians who support the capitalist policies associated with social Darwinistic strenuously denounce Darwin’s evolutionary science because it supposedly leads to, well, social Darwinism!

fish, given your self beleived superior intellect over the rest of the people on this site, one would have thought you would have realized that in religion, just as in science, there are those that will use either for their self advantage.

Is the religious person that uses a political religious agenda for financial gain any different or worse than the scientist who uses a politiical scientific agenda to gain financial backing for their personal gain?   (think gloal warming here!)

If you wish to base your judgement of religion on the Jimmy Swaggerts and James and Tammy Faye Baker types of the world, you have a convaluted veiw of what religion should be.
 
guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

Please don't feed the troll.
Thank you.

 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

crfisherman Said:

A good documentary, Expelled: no intelligence allowed.  Shows how even the evolutionist have their radical.  Yeah, Hitler was an evolutionist saying the Jews didn’t “evolve” right and wanted them out of the gene pool. 

He was also not an atheist, raised Catholic, believed in god, and used Christianity as fuel in a country that was 94% Christian.

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

    If you guys are so against christians, how to this country become so great, A beacon of freedom and peace, which had a core christian value, as a christian nation.
  Every nation on this earth started out pagen, besides America and Israel, And America is the only country that started out Christian and is now becoming pagan. Everybody can believe what they want, but why mess with are core values which built up this country. And you wonder why this country is going down the toilet. 

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

Candiru Said:
 

buckmaster81 Said:
Jesus never once preached that a political body should take from one group and redistribute amongst another. He preached that those with the ability should help the less fortunate by their own free will. Big difference.

Where did jesus say anything about imposing christianity and its morals on people through gov't?  

Never said he did...... der....

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

crfisherman's picture
crfisherman
Offline
Joined: 3/31/03

Bringing TheRain


crfisherman Said:

A good documentary, Expelled: no intelligence allowed.  Shows how even the evolutionist have their radical.  Yeah, Hitler was an evolutionist saying the Jews didn’t “evolve” right and wanted them out of the gene pool. 

He was also not an atheist, raised Catholic, believed in god, and used Christianity as fuel in a country that was 94% Christian.

Yeah, i know he was Catholic, but that isn't why he went after the Jews. 

 Live like you'll die tomorrow,
Die knowing you'll live forever.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

GST-Perhaps you should reread what was written as you've offered nothing but empty rhetoric.  You attempt to offer a shallow comparison of something you choose not to accept the facts on.  Even if what you stated had credence do you honestly think it's okay ?  Since one group behaves badly it's acceptable that another behave in an equally  offensive and hypocritical way with the primary objective being self serving and at the same time calling yourself a Christian?  Perhaps there's a new Bible out there I haven't seen yet.....

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

fish turn the other cheek brother

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fishmahn Said:
GST-Perhaps you should reread what was written as you've offered nothing but empty rhetoric.  You attempt to offer a shallow comparison of something you choose not to accept the facts on.  Even if what you stated had credence do you honestly think it's okay ?  Since one group behaves badly it's acceptable that another behave in an equally  offensive and hypocritical way with the primary objective being self serving and at the same time calling yourself a Christian?  Perhaps there's a new Bible out there I haven't seen yet.....

fish, could you please show where I suggested it's "okay" " Since one group behaves badly it's acceptable that another behave in an equally offensive and hypocritical way"?

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

GST-Sure,..."Is a religious person that uses a political religious agenda for financial gain any worse then........"  Perhaps you're just unclear in your message but it appears you're comparing a "religious" person with someone or something you totally disagree with both doing something that is for personal gain. 
(looking out for #1) I was under the impression that  christians strived to become better people, true to themselves and their neighbor  I think people that are actually Christians do behave in this manner.   The problem I have is with the radical religious right which in my opinion is light years in the negative direction from this.

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

fishmahn Said:
GST-Sure,..."Is a religious person that uses a political religious agenda for financial gain any worse then........"  Perhaps you're just unclear in your message but it appears you're comparing a "religious" person with someone or something you totally disagree with both doing something that is for personal gain. 
(looking out for #1) I was under the impression that  christians strived to become better people, true to themselves and their neighbor  I think people that are actually Christians do behave in this manner.   The problem I have is with the radical religious right which in my opinion is light years in the negative direction from this.

What do you consider the radical religious right? Because I am not sure if you mean that someone against abortion is radical, or someone that gives 10% of income to the church would be this radical that you speak of. Or is it someone that says a prayer before a meal, attends church, feeds the needy, donates time and money for the simple fact of just donating to help those that need it.

I am very confused with that label. You must be speaking of the Rev. Wright type of hate mongers, but he is not religious, he is a wolf in sheeps clothing that your hero spent 20 years listen to and modeling his spiritaul life after. And of course he isnt on the religious right that you have a problem with. Which must mean you agree with him, seems the rest of us should be the ones with the problem.

Neat

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Johnr-Read the posts and you can easily find and answer to that question. I actually went into detail concerning that very definition. 
 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

fishmahn Said:
Johnr-Read the posts and you can easily find and answer to that question. I actually went into detail concerning that very definition. 
 

So do you consider Obama's spriitual leader the honorable Rev Wright to be a member of the radical religious right?
Thats what I am confused about. I thought you and Obama where of the radical left side, you know the way far left liberal / progressives, or what ever you guys refer to yourselves as these days.

Neat

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10
Johnr-You've beat that horse before,...repeatedly.  Once again,....I was referring to those that wrap themselves in the crucifix and flag and but behave more like followers of Ayn Rand then Jesus Christ.  Those that politically behave with " free wheeling, deregulated, minimal taxes for the wealthy, plutocrat boosting capitlaism as the ideal earthly scheme for His human creation."  and attempt to qualify themselves as Christians.   NOt much of that philosophy in the
bible,...quite the contrary.
guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

Now you know why I choose not to feed trolls johnr. You rarely get a straight answer, just more of the same silliness. Some here get their kicks solely from the arguing. So they take extreme positions and state them in ways designed specifically to get a rise out of conservatives. That's their source of joy/satisfaction.

Ishta... creepy.

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09
fishmahn Said:
GST-Sure,..."Is a religious person that uses a political religious agenda for financial gain any worse then........"  Perhaps you're just unclear in your message but it appears you're comparing a "religious" person with someone or something you totally disagree with both doing something that is for personal gain. 
(looking out for #1) I was under the impression that  christians strived to become better people, true to themselves and their neighbor  I think people that are actually Christians do behave in this manner.   The problem I have is with the radical religious right which in my opinion is light years in the negative direction from this.

gst Said:
fish, given your self beleived superior intellect over the rest of the people on this site, one would have thought you would have realized that in religion, just as in science, there are those that will use either for their self advantage.

Is the religious person that uses a political religious agenda for financial gain any different or worse than the scientist who uses a politiical scientific agenda to gain financial backing for their personal gain?   (think gloal warming here!)

If you wish to base your judgement of religion on the Jimmy Swaggerts and James and Tammy Faye Baker types of the world, you have a convaluted veiw of what religion should be. 
 

fish it appears perhaps it is YOU that is "unclear" with my "message from the quote you take. One would think given your selfbeleived intellectual supperiority you would have comprehended from the "message" that NEITHER the religious person that uses religious agendasfor self gain or the scientist that uses scientific agendas for self gain are "acceptable". 

Please note the emboldened print that suggests these people in religion that do this are not what I beleive is "acceptable".
 
I would have thought someone of your intellect would have caught that.

You condemn those in religion for doing this but yet argue continueally in support of those in science that do the very same thing (think global warming) . So perhaps you are not as many "light years" from what you condemn as you would like to beleive.  

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fishmahn Said:

Johnr-You've beat that horse before,...repeatedly.  Once again,....I was referring to those that wrap themselves in the crucifix and flag and but behave more like followers of Ayn Rand then Jesus Christ.  Those that politically behave with " free wheeling, deregulated, minimal taxes for the wealthy, plutocrat boosting capitlaism as the ideal earthly scheme for His human creation."  and attempt to qualify themselves as Christians.   NOt much of that philosophy in the
bible,...quite the contrary.

Fish, one thing that is certain, the reverand Wright will not "wrap himself in the flag" !

Pages